Kentucky Domain Case Legal Points
Published: Friday, October 17, 2008 Online-Casinos.com
KENTUCKY LEGAL POINTS (Update)
A brief look at Judge Wingate's reasoning
In rejecting the arguments of a platoon of lawyers representing the diverse interested parties seeking the dismissal of the Kentucky domain action (see previous Online-Casinos.com/InfoPowa reports) Judge Wingate gave his reasoning on various issues raised.
Those opposing the Kentucky initiative to confiscate 141 domains included website owners and groupings such as the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA), the Interactive Gaming Council (IGC), the Poker Players Alliance, the Internet Commerce Association, counsel for Network Solutions, Inc., the California-based domain registrar servicing some of the domains ordered forfeited to the state and GoDaddy, another registrar.
Is poker a game of luck or skill?
This argument was rejected in its entirety, with the judge noting that the Kentucky statute dictates an element of chance without specific regard as to proportions with skill. The PPA contention that poker websites should not be treated collectively along with other Internet gambling sites due to skill outweighing luck in its nature was dismissed.
Does Kentucky have jurisdiction over domains that are neither present nor maintained in the state?
The judge dismissed the argument that a domain name's presence is where it is owned or housed, essentially ruling that Internet domain issues are matters which individual states have a right to adjudicate. Those domain names involved in the actual facilitation of gambling for Kentucky residents served as the focal points for the services provided, with the domain name itself indispensable in maintaining and providing a player's access to virtual casinos. Internet geoblocking was one way of bringing the sites into alignment with Kentucky law, the judge said.
What is the position of domains that merely advertise or carry information on Internet gambling?
The judge found that any websites among those domain names seized which are providing information only would have the seizure order affecting them rescinded at the November 17 hearings scheduled to finalise the confiscation of those domains which had not blocked Kentucky residents. Websites have 30 days to institute the blocking solution.
Claims of legal standing.
Judge Wingate ruled that none of the organisations involved in opposing the state of Kentucky's actions had legal standing in this matter. The PPA and ICA had not claimed standing, but filed briefs as friends of the court, while Network Solutions was denied official standing in the case until such time as it openly identified the owners.
Surprisingly, iMEGA was also denied standing despite its achievement of associational standing in its federal case against the UIGEA earlier in the year. It appears that the judge supports the Kentucky state claim that affected domain owners could and should be present in the court to identify themselves, and that iMEGA, without identifying its own specific ownership and interests, could not stand in for the owners themselves. Such a physical presence would open such persons and entities to the court's jurisdiction.
